yahayra michel-smith and murray a. straus

1

Dyadic Patterns Of Perpetration Of Physical Assault And Injury Of Dating Partners By Male And Female University Students

In 32 Nations

Yahayra Michel-Smith and Murray A. Straus

Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire, USADurham, NH 03824 603-862-2594

[email protected] or [email protected]

Website: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2

• Presented at the Stockholm Criminology Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden, 9 to 11 June, 2014. • Other publications on this and related issues can be downloaded from http//:www.pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2• The work was supported by National Institute of Mental Health grant T32MH15161 and by the University of New Hampshire

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Dyadic Types Defined

• A method of assessing behavior at the couple level– Not the same as male-to-female (or female-to-male) assault– Mutually Exclusive Typology

• How Measured– Only need one respondent– Cross tabulated individual level data

• Versions– Gender (Male-Only, Female-Only Both)– Partner Version (Self-Only, Partner-Only, Both)– Child Respondent (Mother-Only, Father-Only, Both)

2

Dyadic Types-Why Important

• Violence is not a homogenous phenomenon– One of several conflict management techniques– Interaction of two or more parties – Varies by the case – Is usually moralistic

• Effects vary based on type– Mental health– Antisocial symptoms– Criminal beliefs – Criminal behavior

• Informs the ongoing unilateral vs. bilateral debate

3

Black’s Conflict Management Theory

4

Questions To Be Addressed

1. When there was physical violence, what percent of cases were in each DT?

1a. Does it vary by gender of respondent?

1b. Is there consistency over nations and regions?

2. Does the percent in each DT differ when data is based on severe assaults?

3. How often did men and women in each DT physically assault and injure their partner?

5

DATA FROM THE INTERNATIONAL DATING

VIOLENCE STUDY 2001-2006

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID.htm

Convenience Sample of Students 14,252 At 68 Universities In 32 Nations

Includes data from all major regions of the world

Region NationN

% Fe-

maleMeanAge

All Nations 14,252 71.4 23.1

Africa (2)

ZAF S. Africa 109 93.6 24.1TZA Tanzania 175 49.1 26.3

Asia(7)

CHN China 756 61.9 21.6HKG China-HK 551 69.9 24.6IND India 95 76.8 22.3JPN Japan 133 53.4 20.4SGP Singapor 216 69.0 25.0KOR S. Korea 190 59.5 24.8TWN Taiwan 162 75.9 20.2

Europe(13)

BEL Belgium 706 78.5 27.5DEU Germany 485 69.5 24.2GBR Grt . Brit. 418 85.9 21.0GRC Greece 231 76.2 21.1HUN Hungary 161 68.3 22.3LTU Lithuania 389 66.6 20.5

MLT Malta 103 78.6 22.6

Region Nation N

% Fe-

maleMeanAge

NLD Netherlands 385 87.5 23.5

PRT Portugal 360 67.2 21.8

ROU Romania 244 90.2 21.0

RUS Russia 429 60.1 19.9

SWE Sweden 674 75.8 28.7

CHE Switzerland 317 77.0 33.9

Latin Amer.

(4)

BRA Brazil 245 68.2 21.1

GTM Guatemala 176 48.3 19.7

MEX Mexico 205 83.9 20.6

VEN Venezuela 261 62.5 24.2

Middle East (2)

IRN Iran 98 76.5 22.4

ISR Israel 318 82.1 31.0North

America(2)

CAN Canada 1135 72.9 21.8

USA United St. 4162 69.1 21.7

Oceania(2)

AUS Australia 233 82.0 23.7NZL New Zealand 130 78.5 21.7

Table 1 International Dating Violence Study Sample Students In A Relationship

6

7


VIOLENCE STUDYhttp://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID.htm



Questionnaires completed in class

Analyses Control For * Age * gender

* SES * Social Desirability Scale * Nation

8


VIOLENCE STUDYhttp://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID.htm



Questionnaires completed in class

Analyses Control For * Age * gender

* SES * Social Desirability Scale * Nation

VALIDITY OF THE DATA• Concurrent validity: correlated with

recognized international statistics• Representative Samples

• Mean = .50 (.43 to .69)

9

Partial r = .-.69

The Higher The Empowerment Of Women In A Nation, The Lower The Dominance Of Men In Dating Relationships (29 Nations)

Measures-Revised CTS2

Physical Assault (alpha =.86)

– Kicked, bit or punched– Slapped– Threw something that could hurt– Grabbed– Twisted arm or hair– Beat up *– Choked *– Slammed against wall*– Used knife or gun*– Burned or scalded on purpose*

Injury (alpha =.95)

– Partner was cut or bleeding– Partner went to doctor for injury– Partner needed to see doctor but

didn’t– Partner felt pain the next day– Partner had sprain or bruise – Partner’s private parts were

bleeding

10

Q1: When there was physical violence, what percent of cases were in each DT? Q1a: Does it vary by gender?

11

Men Women Men Women Men Women Male-Only Female-Only Both-Assault

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

10

15

75

8

24

69

Based on a an overall prevalence rate of 31%

According to Women = 33%According to Men = 27%

12

Table 2 Predicted Probabilities of –Any Assault Dyadic Types by NationsAccording to All Participants and Controlling for 4 variables*

Male Only Female Only Both

PrevalenceAll Nations 8.4% 21.2% 70.4% 31.0%Australia 14.3% 21.8% 63.9% 26.5%Belgium 10.7% 18.9% 70.4% 37.1%

Brazil 16.4% 13.2% 70.4% 25.5%Canada 9.5% 22.1% 68.3% 28.1%China 5.8% 32.5% 61.7% 38.9%Taiwan 10.8% 23.3% 65.9% 35.3%Germany 12.8% 25.7% 61.5% 29.0%Greece 23.0% 16.2% 60.8% 39.4%

Guatemala 10.5% 25.9% 63.7% 28.7%Hong Kong 8.2% 37.0% 54.8% 39.7%Hungary 10.7% 19.3% 70.0% 26.1%India 8.5% 10.9% 80.6% 36.9%

Iran, Islamic R 6.5% 1.3% 92.2% 80.0%Israel 7.6% 31.5% 60.9% 21.1%Japan 7.7% 16.1% 76.2% 18.4%

South Korea 10.8% 20.4% 68.8% 30.4%Lithuania 5.3% 23.8% 71.0% 29.6%Malta 22.3% 31.1% 46.6% 23.1%Mexico 7.5% 13.1% 79.4% 51.3%

Netherlands 4.9% 23.0% 72.1% 32.7%New Zealand 9.1% 27.7% 63.2% 32.8%Portugal 11.2% 22.4% 66.4% 20.5%Romania 5.4% 23.6% 71.0% 38.0%

Russian Federate 2.9% 28.1% 69.0% 33.1%Singapore 11.7% 31.3% 57.0% 25.3%South Africa 5.2% 4.8% 90.0% 37.1%Sweden 12.7% 28.1% 59.2% 23.9%

Switzerland 8.5% 26.9% 64.6% 27.9%United Kingdom 4.0% 18.2% 77.8% 36.9%

Tanzania 5.7% 3.3% 91.0% 39.1%United States 9.5% 21.2% 69.3% 34.2%Venezuela 12.6% 16.0% 71.4% 35.3%

Prevalence rates varied widely across nations, but the dyadic type patterns were relatively consistent across nations

Both-Assaulted was consistently the most prevalent dyadic types

Female-Only was the next most common category in 27:32 nations

Male-Only was the next highest category in 5 out of 32 nations

Q1b: Is there consistency over nations?

Q2: Does the percent in each DT differ when data is based on severe assaults?

Any Assault Severe Assault

13


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

13

26

61

14

31

55

Based on a prevalence rate of 10.5%


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

10

15

75

8

24

69

Based on a prevalence rate of 31%

14

Table 3 Predicted Probabilities of Severe Assault Dyadic Types by NationsAccording to All Participants and Controlling for 4 variables*

Male Only Female Only Both Prevalence

All Nations 13.6% 29.6% 56.8% 10.5%Australia 21.2% 24.9% 53.9% 11.5%Belgium 16.5% 33.5% 50.0% 12.1%Brazil 12.1% 17.1% 70.8% 7.6%Canada 13.2% 25.5% 61.3% 10.2%Taiwan 19.3% 40.9% 39.9% 21.8%China 3.0% 38.4% 58.6% 19.9%

Germany 16.9% 28.2% 54.9% 8.5%Greece 25.3% 15.8% 58.9% 20.9%

Guatemala 18.5% 29.1% 52.3% 10.8%Hong Kong 9.0% 43.1% 47.9% 17.5%Hungary 15.8% 42.8% 41.4% 11.6%India 11.9% 16.8% 71.3% 16.8%

Iran, Islamic R 17.9% 16.7% 65.5% 16.0%Israel 10.9% 23.7% 65.4% 7.8%Japan 10.7% 9.4% 79.9% 6.9%

South Korea 10.4% 22.1% 67.5% 14.1%Lithuania 15.5% 36.3% 48.1% 7.6%Malta 41.6% 46.6% 11.8% 7.7%Mexico 20.1% 18.1% 61.8% 21.9%

Netherlands 8.9% 43.2% 47.9% 5.8%New Zealand 0.0% 52.9% 47.1% 10.0%Portugal 21.3% 8.5% 70.2% 7.5%Romania 19.6% 34.8% 45.5% 15.6%

Russian Federate 15.3% 30.8% 53.9% 12.6%Singapore 8.3% 46.4% 45.3% 5.5%South Africa 10.0% 26.8% 63.2% 17.6%Sweden 33.9% 39.7% 26.4% 3.6%

Switzerland 8.2% 34.3% 57.5% 6.6%United Kingdom 13.4% 27.1% 59.5% 15.8%

Tanzania 17.5% 8.4% 74.1% 23.0%Unites States 14.8% 28.5% 56.7% 14.1%Venezuela 17.3% 17.5% 65.2% 20.7%

Prevalence rates varied widely across nations, but the dyadic type patterns were relatively consistent across nations

Both-Assaulted was the most prevalent dyadic types in 26:32 nations

Female-Only was the next most common category in 27:32 nations

Male-Only was the next highest category in 5 out of 32 nations

Q2b: Is there consistency over nations?

Q3: How often did men and women in each DT injure their partner?

15


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

10

17

73

20

14

67

Based on a prevalence rate of 7%

16

Table 4-Predicted Probabilities of Injury Dyadic TypesAccording to All Participants and Controlling for 4 variables*

% Male-Only % Female-Only % Both Prevalence

All Regions 16.7% 14.4% 68.9% 7.4%

Africa 7.9% 8.2% 83.9% 19.3%

Asia 25.9% 16.3% 57.8% 8.0%

Australia-New Zealand 36.7% 4.3% 59.0% 6.4%

Europe 19.7% 17.5% 62.8% 6.4%

Latin America 11.1% 16.6% 72.3% 9.2%

Middle East 3.8% 7.2% 89.0% 22.0%

North America-CAN 20.4% 6.2% 73.3% 8.3%

North America-USA 17.7% 16.7% 65.7% 9.7%

Prevalence rates varied widely across regions, but the dyadic type patterns were relatively consistent across nations

Both-Assaulted was the most prevalent dyadic types in 8:8 regions (100%)

Male-Only was the next highest category in 5 out of 8 regions

Female-Only was the next most common category in 3:8 nations (25%)

Q3a: Is there consistency over regions?

Summary of Findings

• This study obtained data on physical violence between partners in a relationship lasting more than 30 days.– Both most prevalent

• Female-Only is the second most common

– Based on any assault, severe assault*and according to male and female respondents

– Results based on injury also suggests• Both is most prevalent• Male-Only is the second most common

– Findings relatively consistent across nations

17

Q4: What percent of male and female students in each DT were the first to hit?

18

Male Female Male Female Woman First to Hit Man First to Hit

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

62

38

69

31

Is the violence perpetrated by women accounted for by self-defense?

Q5: To what degree does the assaultive behavior of men and women who are in the Both DT differ?

19

Are dyadic types obscuring something? Both are doing it, but is it equally both?

ID64 20

Women Beta - .72 Men Beta = .35

% Of Relationships Both Violent % Of Relationships Both Violent

THE HIGHER THE PERCENT OF COUPLES IN A NATIONAL SETTINGS WHO WERE BOTH VIOLENT, THE HIGHER THE PERCENT INJURED

Relationship is strong for both men & women, but even stronger for women

% Injured

Are men more effective at using violence?

21

Are the results presented unique to this study, sample, measure, and type of respondent?

•Systematic Review of Dyadic Studies (in progress)• 70+ studies• 200+ comparisons• Just partner violence (55)

• Rates varied, but pattern was the same• Regardless of reporter

(male, female or child)• Regardless of measure

• CTS or not• Regardless of sample

• Student sample• Clinical sample• Population sample

•Both was the prevalent dyadic type

22

What Explains The Consistency Of Both-Assaulted?

This is important to think about because the results suggest (with only a few exceptions) that there is a universal pattern.

Reciprocity and escalationBoth more prevalent and more frequent

Modeling CP associated with increased likelihood for both men and women

Relationship stronger for women overall Exposure of both partners to similar risk and protective factors

for the behavior

23

Rsquare = .158Beta = .398Based on 30:32 Nations

The higher the global peace index, the higher the prevalence of partner violence.

Note: Stars represent nations with the highest and lowest prevalence rates.

24

The higher the gender inequality index, the higher the prevalence of partner violence.

Rsquare = .216Beta = .465Based on 31:32 Nations

Note: Stars represent nations with the highest and lowest prevalence rates.

25

The higher the gender inequality index, the higher the percent of couples in the Both-Assault categories. (ANY)

Rsquare = .352Beta= .593

What are the implications for research and intervention efforts?

•More attention needs to be given to bilateral couple violence in research and in practice.

–In clinical work, the DT of the case should be assessed at intake (even if only one partner treated)–In research, more studies should ask questions about both parties involvement in violence

•Violence by both men and women needs to be addressed–Both-Assaulted is more prevalent–Both-Assaulted more frequent–Both –Assaulted is more likely to lead to injury–Both-Assaulted has been linked to worse outcomes for children

•Victim services need to continue to give priority to women victims because women are injured more than men

26

27

PARTNER ASSAULT RATES BY AGE AND SEX OF OFFENDER

(National Family Violence Survey N= 5,229).

Chart from Straus, M. A., & Ramirez, I. L. (2007). Gender symmetry in prevalence, severity, and chronicity of physical aggression against dating partners by University students in Mexico and USA. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 281-290.

A Note About Age-Prevalence

A note about age-Dyadic TypesPeak ages for partner assault vary by gender

Women’s involvement in partner assault peaks in young adulthood.

Men peak in early 30s.

29

Limitations

•Convenience Sample of Students not representative• Validity studies (previously referenced)• Results replicated using representative samples

•Two-thirds of sample is women• Data either controlled for gender or presented data separately for gender.

•US sample makes up close to 1/3 of sample• Data presented separately by Nation

•Measure of severity initially based on researcher’s judgment of behavior that are highly likely to result in injury

• Consistent pattern when looking at “severe assaults” may be due to invalid severe measure

• Supported by factors analyses and interviews with women•Reporting biases by gender

• Controlled for social desirability

.

Moving Forward

• More work needs to be done in order to explain the consistency of the Both-Assaulted DT across 32 very different nations– More cross-national measures need to be evaluated as potential

explanations• Violence Acceptance• Other measures of inequality

– Qualitative studies can help explain these findings• Subjective vs. Objective experience as suggested by GST

– Look beyond physical assault and injury• Interactions

• Are Men more “effective” in there use of violence?– If violence is moralistic in nature (or purposeful), then arguably we

need to engage in it less.

ADDITIONAL SLIDES

32

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

12

21

67

Dyadic Types Of Corporal Punishment By Parents of University Students in 15 nations (N=11,408)

% Of Parents

Fauchier and Straus, 2012

Q3. In what percent of cases was hitting only by the father, only the mother, or by both?

DT-CP 02

33

Dyadic Types Of Spanking

The percent of students who stole money is lowest for those not spanked

Goes up when the father was the only spanker.

Goes up more when the mother was the only spanker

Is highest for students spanked at age 10 by both parents

Consistent with results on amount of spanking

Q4. Is being spanked at age 10 related to nine measures of criminal propensity and actual crime as a young adult, and does it make a difference which parent spanks?

% WhoStoleMoney

DT-CP 02

34

R = .40

% Spanked or hit a lot before age 12

Violence Approval

Scale

The Relation Of Spanking To Violence Applies To Characteristics Of Nations The Higher The Percent Of Students In A Nation Who Were Spanked The

Stronger The Cultural Norms Approving Violent Behavior Such “A Man Should Not Walk Away From A Fight”

DT-CP 02

35

Predicted Probabilities of other Dyadic Types Overall and by Gender and Controlling for 4 variables*

Gender of Respondent % Male Only % Female Only

% Both

Prevalence

Male 2.3 4.5 93.2 0.4 Female 10.1 2.2 87.7 0.3Any Psych Aggression Total 8.9 16.9 74.1 43.0 Male 9.1 18.5 72.3 38.1 Female 8.8 16.5 74.7 45.1Severe Psych Aggression Total 14.6 26.8 58.6 26.0 Male 18.2 16.9 64.9 22.5 Female 13.3 31.0 55.8 27.9Any Sexual Coercion Total 29.3 9.5 61.2 31.1 Male 21.6 10.3 68.1 31.1 Female 32.8 9.1 58.1 31.3Physical Sexual Coercion Total 35.9 10.7 53.4 2.4 Male 16.1 19.1 64.8 2.4 Female 45.6 8.0 43.4 2.6Verbal Sexual Coercion Total 37.2 15.9 46.9 2.5 Male 23.9 19.0 57.0 2.3 Female 42.8 14.5 42.7 2.6Any Intransigence Total 10.7 9.3 80.0 20.7 Male 8.5 10.9 80.5 22.6 Female 11.9 8.6 79.5 20.0

36

NINE CRIMINALITY VARIABLES

Percent That Score For Women Is Of Score For Men• Women scored lower than men on all but one of 9 criminality measures

• The one exception: more women assaulted a dating partner

% That Score of Women is of Male Score

Stolen money from anyone (including family)

Attacked someone intending to seriously injure

Physically Injured partner in previous yr.

Severe physical assault of partner in previous yr.

Any physical assault of partner in previous yr.

Child-to-Mother physical assault in previous yr.

Child-to-Father physical assault in previous yr.

Criminal beliefs

Antisocial personality

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160%

yahayra michel-smith and murray a. straus

Documents